Part 2 — Chapter 3: Of Greater Presbyteries, Which Some Call Classes

The word [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Presbytery we find three times in the New Testament, twice of the Jewish Presbytery at Jerusalem (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5), and once of the Christian Presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14): "Neglect not the gift that is in you, which [⟨◊⟩] given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Sutlivius and Douname have borrowed, from Bellarmine, two false glosses upon this place.

They say by [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] here, we may understand either an assembly of Bishops, or the office of a Presbyter, which was given to Timothy. To these absurdities let one of their own side answer. Whereas says Doctor Forbesse, some have expounded the Presbytery in this place to be a company of Bishops, unless by Bishops you would understand simple Presbyters, it is a violent interpretation, and an insolent meaning. And whereas others have understood the degree itself of Eldership, this cannot stand, for the degree has not hands, but hands are men's. I find in Sutlivius a third gloss. He says, that the word Presbytery in this place signifies the Ministers of the word, non juris vinculo sed ut cunque collectos, inter quos etiam Apostoli erant. Ans. 1. If so, then the occasional meeting of Ministers, be it in a journey, or at a wedding, or a burial, &c. shall all be Presbyteries, for then they are ut cunque collecti. 2. The Apostles did put the Churches [⟨◊⟩] better order, than to leave imposition of hands, or any thing of that kind to the uncertainty of an occasional meeting. 3. The Apostles were freely present in any Presbytery, where they were for the time, because the oversight and care of all the Churches was laid upon them: Pastors and Elders were necessarily present therein, and did by virtue of their particular vocation meet together Presbyterially, whether an Apostle were with them, or not.

No other sense can the text suffer but that by Presbytery we should understand consessus Presbyterorum, a meeting of Elders, and so do Camero and Forbesse themselves expound it. Sutlivius objects to the contrary, that the Apostle Paul did lay on hands upon Timothy, which he proves both from 2 Timothy 1, and because extraordinary gifts were given by that laying on of hands. Ans. There is an express difference made between Paul's laying on of his hands, and the Presbytery's laying on of their hands. Of the former it is said, that Timothy received the gift, which was in him, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] by the laying on of Paul's hands; but he received the gift [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, as Didoclavius notes. But says Sutlivius, Timothy being an Evangelist (as you hold) how could he be ordained by the Presbytery? Ans. 1. Though the Presbytery did neither give him ordination to be an Evangelist, nor yet confer by the laying on of their hands extraordinary gifts upon him, yet did they lay on their hands, as setting to the seal and testimony, and commending him to the grace of God, even as certain Prophets and Teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, and Ananias also before that time had laid his hands upon Paul. 2. The Presbytery might ordain Timothy to be an Elder, if so be he was ordained an Elder before he was ordained an Evangelist. 3. If the testimony of the Presbytery, by the laying on of their hands, together with the Apostles' hands, in the extraordinary mission of Timothy, was required: much more may it be put out of question, that the Apostles committed to the Presbytery the full power of ordaining ordinary Ministers.

But it is further objected by Sutlivius that this could not be such a Presbytery as is among us, because ordination and imposition of hands pertain to none, but the Ministers of the word. Ans. 1. The children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levites, and we would know his reason why he denies the like power to ruling Elders now, especially since this imposition of hands is but a gesture of one praying, and a moral sign declaring the person prayed for. 2. However our practice (which is also approved by good divines) is, to put a difference between the act of ordination and the external right thereof, which is imposition of hands, ascribing the former to the whole Presbytery both Pastors and Elders, and reserving the latter to the Ministers of the word, yet to be done in the name of all.

Thus have we evinced the Apostle's meaning, when he speaks of a Presbytery, and this Consistory we find to have continued in the Christian Church in the ages after the Apostles. It is certain that the ancient Bishops had no power to judge any cause without the presence, advice and counsel of their Presbyters (Conc. Carth. 4. can. 23). Field, Forbesse, Saravia, and Douname, do all acknowledge that it was so, and so does Bellarmine (de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8). Of this Presbytery speaks Cyprian: Omni actu ad me perlato, placuit contrahi Presbyterium, &c.

Of the Presbytery speaketh the same Cyprian, lib. 2. Ep. 8. & lib. 4. Ep. 5. Ignatius ad Trall. and Hierom in Esa. 3. We find it also in conc. Ancyr. can 18 and in conc. Carthag. 4. can. 35.40. Doctor Forbesse alleges that the word Presbytery for fifteen hundred years after Christ, did signify no other thing in the Church, than a Diocesan Synod. But herein (if he had understood himself) he spoke not so much against Presbyteries, as against Prelates; for a Diocese of old was bounded within one City. Tumque jampridem per omnes provincias & per urbes singulas ordinati sint Episcopi, &c. says Cyprian. It was necessary to ordain Bishops, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], says Chrysostome, speaking of the primitive times; yes, in country villages also were Bishops, who were called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], that is, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], rural Bishops, whose Episcopal office though limited, yet was allowed in the Council of Ancyra, can. 13. and the Council of Antioch can 8. & 10. Sozomen records that the village Majuma, which was sometime a suburb of the city Gaza, was not subject to the Bishop of Gaza, but had its own proper Bishop, and that by the decree of a Synod in Palestina. The Council of Sardis, can. 6. and the Council of Laodicea, can. 57. though they discharged the ordaining of Bishops in villages, lest the name of a Bishop should grow contemptible, did nevertheless allow every city to have a Bishop of its own. What has Doctor Forbesse now gained by maintaining that the bounds of a Presbytery, and of a Diocese were all one? They in the Netherlands sometime call their Presbyteries Dioceses: and many of our Presbyteries are greater than were Dioceses of old. We conclude there was anciently a Presbytery in every city which did indeed choose one of their number to preside among them, and to lay on hands in name of the rest, and he was called the Bishop; wherein they did more trust the deceivable goodness of their own intentions, than advert to the rule of the Word of God.

These things premitted, I come now to that which is principally intended, namely, by what warrant and qu[•] jure, the Classical Presbytery among us, made up out of many neighbouring congregations, should be the ordinary court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at least in all matters of highest importance, which do concern either all or any of those congregations.

For resolution hereof we must understand 1. That causes common to many congregations, ought not to be judged by any one of them, but by the greater Presbytery common to them all. 2. It is to be supposed that particular congregations (at least the far greatest part of them) have not in their proper Elderships so many men of sufficient abilities, as are requisite in judging and determining the cases of the examination of Ministers, of ordination, deposition, excommunication, and the like. 3. When one appeals from a particular Eldership, out of persuasion that he is wronged by the sentence thereof, or when that Eldership finding its own insufficiency for determining some difficult causes, resolves to refer the same into a higher court: reason would that there should be an ordinary court of a Classical Presbytery to receive such appellations or references. 4. Congregations which lie near together, ought all as one to keep unity and conformity in church policy and government, neither ought one of them be permitted to do an injury, or to give an offence to another: and for these ends, it is most necessary that they be governed by one common Presbytery. 5. There may be a competition or a controversy not only between one congregation and another, but in the same congregation between the one half and the other; yes, the Eldership itself of that congregation, may be, (and sometimes is) divided in itself. And how shall things of this kind be determined, but by the common Presbytery? 6. But (which is caput rei) these our Classical Presbyteries have a certain warrant from the pattern of the Apostolical Churches: for proof whereof, it shall be made to appear, 1. That in those cities, (at least in many of them) where Christian religion was planted by the Apostles, there were a great number of Christians, than either did, or conveniently could meet together into one place for the worship of God. 2. That in those cities there was a plurality not only of ruling Elders, but of the Ministers of the word. 3. That notwithstanding hereof, the whole number of Christians within the city, was one Church. 4. That the whole number, and several companies of Christians within one city, were all governed by one common Presbytery. The second of these does follow upon the first, and the fourth upon the third.

The first proposition may be made good by induction of particulars; and first, it is more than evident of Jerusalem, where we find to 120 Disciples (Acts 1:15) added 8000 by Peter's two Sermons (Acts 2:41 and 4:4). Besides whom, there were yet more multitudes added (Acts 5:14). And after that also, we read of a further multiplication of the Disciples (Acts 6:1), by occasion whereof the seven Deacons were chosen and ordained: which makes some to conjecture, that there were seven congregations, a Deacon for every one. Certainly there were rather more than fewer, though we cannot determine how many. It is written of Samaria, that the people with one accord gave heed to Philip (Acts 8:6), even all of them both men and women, from the least to the greatest, who had before given heed to Simon: of these all it is said, that they believed Philip, and were baptized (vers. 10:12), which made the Apostles that were at Jerusalem — when they heard that the great city Samaria had received the word of God, to send to them Peter and John, the harvest being so great, that Philip was not sufficient for it (v. 14). Of Joppa it is said, that many believed in the Lord. Of Antioch we read, that a great number believed, and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:21). Of Iconium that a great multitude both of the Jews, and also of the Greeks, believed (Acts 14:1). Of Lydda, that all who dwelt therein, turned to the Lord (Acts 9:35). Of Berea, that many of them believed: also of the honorable women, and the men not a few (Acts 17:12). Of Corinth the Lord says, I have much people in this city (Acts 18:10). Of Ephesus we find, that fear fell on all the Jews and Greeks which dwelt there, and many believed; yes, many of the Magicians themselves, whose books that were burned, amounted to fifty thousand pieces of silver, so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed (Acts 19:17, 18, 19, 20). To the multitude of Christians in those cities, let us add another consideration, namely, that they had no Temples (as now we have) but private places for their holy assemblies, such as the house of Mary (Acts 12:12), the School of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), an upper chamber at Troas (Acts 20:8), Paul's lodging at Rome (Acts 28:23). Neither do I see any reason why the Church which was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19) should not be understood to be a congregation, as Erasmus reads it, that is, such a number of Christians as met together in their house. So we read of the Church in the house of Nymphas (Colossians 4:15), and of the Church [in the] house of Archippus (Philemon v. 2). It is certain, that Christians met together house by house (Acts 2:46). Both these considerations, namely, the multitude of Christians in one city, and their assembling together for worship in private houses, have also place in the next ages after the Apostles. Let Eusebius speak for them both. Who can describe, says he, those innumerable heaps and flocking multitudes, throughout all cities and famous assemblies, frequenting the places dedicated to prayer? Thereafter he proceeds to show how in after-times by the favor of Emperors, Christians had throughout all cities, ample churches built for them, they not being contented with the old Oratoria, which were but private houses. Now these two, the multitude of Christians, and the want of Temples, shall abundantly give light to my first proposition.

But it may be objected to the contrary, that all the Disciples at Jerusalem did meet together into one place (Acts 2:44), and the same is said of the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:20). Answer: The disciples at Jerusalem, being at that time above 3000, it cannot be conceived how any private house could contain them. Beside, it is said, that they broke bread — that is, did celebrate the Lord's Supper — from house to house. Therefore many good interpreters understand by [the phrase], that all the Disciples were linked together into one by amity and love, an evidence whereof is given in the next words, and had all things common. To the other place we answer: 1. That Epistle, whether it were written from Philippi, or from Ephesus, was undoubtedly written very lately after the plantation of the Gospel in Corinth, while as that Church was yet in her infancy. And if it should be granted, that at that time the whole Church of Corinth might and did meet together into one place, this proves not that it was so afterward: for the Churches increased in number daily (Acts 16:5). But, 2. the place of the Apostle proves not that which is alleged: for his words may be understood in sensu distributivo. It was no solecism for one that was writing to diverse congregations, to say, When you come together into one place, meaning distributively of every congregation, not collectively of them all together.

My second proposition concerning the plurality of the Ministers of the Word in those great Cities, wherein the Apostles did erect Christian Churches, ariseth from these grounds, 1. The multiplicity of Christians. 2. The want of Temples, of which two I have already spoken. 3. The daily increase of the Churches to a greater number (Acts 16:5). 4. There was need of preachers, not only for those who were already converted in the City, but also for labouring to winne the unbelievers who were therein. These reasons may make us conclude that there were as many Pastors in one City as there were sacred meetings therein, and some more also for the respects foresaid. And what will you say if we finde examples of this plurality of Pastors in Scripture? Of the Bishops or Pastors of the Church of Ephesus, it is said, that Paul kneeled down, and praied with them all, and they all wept sore (Acts 20:36-37), compared with verse 28. Here is some good number imported. To the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, that is, to the Pastors thereof collectively taken, Christ says, The Devil shall cast some of you into prison (Revelation 2:10), which (if not only yet) principally is spoken to the Pastors, though for the benefit of that whole Church. This is more plaine of the Church of Thyatira, verse 24. [in non-Latin alphabet], To you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira: as if he would say, says Pareus, Tibi [illegible]spicopo cum collegis & reliquo coetui dico. Paul writeth to the Bishop at Philippi (Philippians 1:1), and notwithstanding that there was already a certaine number of Bishops or Pastors in that City, yet the Apostle thought it necessary to send to them Epaphroditus also (Philippians 2:25), being shortly thereafter to send to them Timotheus, verse 19, yes to come himselfe, verse 24, so that there was no scarcity of labourers in that harvest. Epaphras and Archippus were Pastors to the Church at Colosse, and who besides we cannot tell, but Paul sent to them also Tychicus, and Onesimus (Colossians 4:7-9).

Now touching the third proposition, no man who understandeth, will imagine that the multitude of Christians within one of those great Cities was divided into as many parishes as there were meeting places for worship. It is a point of controversie, who did beginne the division of parishes; but whoever it was, whether Evaristus, or Higinus, or Dionysius, certaine it is, that it was not so from the beginning, I meane in the daies of the Apostles, for then it was all one to say, in every City, or to say, in every Church. That which is [in non-Latin alphabet] (Titus 1:5) is [in non-Latin alphabet] (Acts 14:22). This is acknowledged by all Anti-prelaticall writers so farre as I know, and by the Prelaticall writers also.

The last proposition, as it has not beene denyed by any, so it is sufficiently proved by the former, for that which made the multitude of Christians within one City to be one Church, was their union under and their subjection to the same Church governement and governours. A multitude may bee one Church, though they doe not meete together into one place for the worship of God: for example, it may fall forth, that a congregation cannot meet together into one, but into divers places, and this may continue so for some yeares together, either by reason of persecution, or by meanes of the plague, or because they have not such a large parish-Church as may containe them all, so that a part of them must meete in some other place. But a multitude cannot be one Church, unlesse they communicate in the same Church government, and under the same Governours, (by one Church I meane one Ecclesiasticall Republike;) even as the like union under civill government and governours maketh one corporation. When the Apostle speaketh to all the Bishops of the Church of Ephesus, hee exhorteth them all to take heed to all the flocke, [in non-Latin alphabet], over which the holy Ghost had made them overseers, so that the whole was governed by the common counsell and advice of the Elders, as Hierome speaketh. For the same reason we say not the Churches, but the Church of Amsterdam, because all the Pastors and Elders have the charge and governement of the whole.

From all which has beene said, I inferre this Corollary, That in the times of the Apostles, the Presbytery which was the ordinary Court of Jurisdiction, which did ordaine, depose, excommunicate, &c. did consist of so many Pastors and Elders, as could with conveniency meete ordinarily together, which is a paterne and warrant for our Classical Presbyteries. I confesse there might be in some townes no greater number of Christians then did meet together in one place, notwithstanding whereof the Pastor or Pastors and Elders of that congregation, might and did manage the government of the same, and exercise jurisdiction therein. I confesse also that in those Cities wherein there was a greater number of Christians then could meet together into one place for the worship of God, the Presbytery did consist of the Pastors and Elders within such a City: for it cannot be proved that there were at that time any Christian congregations in Landward Villages (the persecution forcing Christians to choose the shelter of Cities, for which reason many are of opinion that the Infidells in those daies were called Pagani, because they alone dwelt in Pagis) and if there had beene any such adjacent to Cities, we must thinke the same should have beene subject to the common Presbytery, their owne Pastors and Elders being a part thereof. However it cannot be called in question that the Presbytery in the Apostolicall Churches, was made up of as many as could conveniently meete together, for managing the ordinary matters of Jurisdiction and Church-government. The Pastors and Elders of divers Cities could not conveniently have such ordinary meetings, especially in the time of persecution; only the Pastors and Elders within one City had such conveniency. And so to conclude, we doe not forsake, but follow the paterne, when we joyne together a number of Pastors and Elders out of the congregations in a convenient circuit, to make up a common Presbytery, which has power and authority to governe those congregations; for if the Presbytery which we find in those Cities wherein the Apostles planted Churches, bee a sure paterne for our Classical Presbyteries (as wee have proved it to bee) then it followeth undeniably that the authority of Church-government, of excommunication, ordination, &c. which did belong to that Primitive Presbytery, does also belong to those our Classical or greater Presbyteries.